瑜伽師地論略纂 13.27

13.27

論解第八俱五法者，問以為能熏，為是所熏？答曰：非二。以非王無，不與能熏相應，而非所熏；以無力能，不從加行心之所引生，故非能熏。夫能熏者，必從前加行心引生者，可成能熏，故此五法非是能熏。　問：若爾，六識之中異熟捨受應同此類，非能、所熏。義曰：許然無失，此為勝義也。又五法緣境，為緣第八識之境，為別為境緣？　問曰：何失？若緣本質境，云何名不同一行相？若別緣者，如五根既為本識等六法所變六五根，而眼等識依何者根？故皆有妨。如實義者，俱緣第八識之境。若爾，如何釋同一所緣，不同一行相？雖境無別，見用各殊，受為領納，相為所緣等，見有別故，說不同行相。與餘七識不同，餘七識得心所名為境緣故。第七親為我、我所等，餘處當釋。此與前兩師義別，彼彼皆依本質影像而變境故。

Regarding the treatise's explanation of the five mental factors associated with the eighth: It is asked whether they are perfuming agents (vācaka) or perfumed bases (vāsyatā)? The answer is: Neither. Because they are not absent when the king [of mind] is present and do not associate with perfuming agents, they are not the perfumed; because they lack efficacy and power and are not induced by a mind of applied preparation (prayogacitta), they are not perfuming agents. Generally speaking, a perfuming agent must be induced from a preceding mind of applied preparation to become a perfuming agent; hence these five mental factors are not perfuming agents. Question: If so, among the six consciousnesses, the retribution equanimous feeling (upekṣā-vedanā) should be of this same class, neither perfuming nor perfumed. The meaning is: Admitting this is without fault; this is the superior principle. Furthermore, do these five mental factors take the object of the ālayavijñāna as their object, or do they take a separate object as their objective domain? Question: What would be the fault? If they take the original essence (mūladravya) as object, how could they be said to 'not share the same mental activity (ākāra)'? If they take separate objects, then since the five sense-faculties are the six sets of five sense-faculties transformed by the six mental dharmas such as the mūlavijñāna, on which sense-faculty would the eye and other consciousnesses rely? Hence both alternatives have difficulties. The true meaning is: they all take the object of the ālayavijñāna as their object. If so, how do we explain 'sharing the same object, yet not sharing the same mental activity'? Although the object is not distinct, the functions of seeing are each different: feeling consists of experiencing, perception consists of taking the nimitta as object, and so on; because the seeings are distinct, they are said not to share the same mental activity. This differs from the other seven consciousnesses, because in the other seven consciousnesses the mental factors obtain their own objects. The seventh directly takes [the eighth] as 'I' and 'mine', which will be explained elsewhere. This differs from the views of the two previous masters, for both of them transformed objects based on the original essence and the image.